Who is the creator

[charismaticlady]

1 archangel named in Gods bible=Michael. No worship goes to him-EVER. Catholicism put worship. Obeisance to a king is correct for Jesus.
Isaiah said-his NAME will be called those things= not him.
Jesus is a mortal--Michael is the spirit God sent to become a mortal.

Please show me scriptures that you are using to connect Michael and Jesus.

Michael is an angel - rank of archangel - over the country of Israel. Archangels are called a prince over their country. Thus, prince of Persia and prince of Greece. Michael is Daniel's prince. What country does Daniel belong to?

Jesus is God, and in His pre-existence was the Word. Not a god, but God. God loved the world so much, and there was no man holy enough to satisfy what was necessary to cleanse the world of Satan's rule, that He overshadowed a virgin to bring forth a make part of Himself mortal to die for us. What JW's do not understand is that all humans since Adam sin - for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God - Jesus didn't, because He is God.

Michael is not the Word. Jesus is. Michael is not the Angel of the Lord. Jesus is. That name is why you are confused. But, you still have no excuse to be ignorant of the divinity of Jesus. Titus 2:13. ...the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. The Father cannot appear, He will always be invisible - He is spirit.

 

[TibiasDad]

Catholicism( 2Thess 2:3) screwed up translation centuries ago. God fixed it-The New world translation. Reality = ones eternal life depends on having( John 4:22-24) truth, thus all are putting eternal life into Catholicism translating( all protestant NT translating came from this) And JW translating= Gods fix so truth can be known.
The removal of Gods name from his bible is one of the biggest atrocities ever to occur, it misleads all into darkness( they find little light)-The JW,s put it back, condemned by the ones owned by satan.

Mere rhetoric and zero evidence as to its validity! Translations are not synonymous with the text itself. Language is not biased in itself, it is just information. The words and how they are used is the foundational starting point, and we rely on the 5800 mss to establish the most reliable expression of what the text actually was when first written by their authors.

Whatever discrepancies there are in these 5800 mss, they are fair points of debate, but the rules of grammar and the insertion of language that is not within these 5800 copies is not debatable.

If it is not in the text, it is not to be in the translation of the text. If the rules of grammar do not permit a particular translation, then it should not stand as legitimately valid or possible.

The NWT does not pass these foundational requirements and repeatedly adds words or manipulates phrasing that violate the rules of grammar.

Doug

 

[JesusFan]

Thomas most assuredly looked to heaven saying-my God. He knew 100% the Messiah has a God( Psalm 45:7) all Israelites knew that.--None who have a God, are God.

Jesus received ehat he stated as truth, as he took Thomas worship

 

[JesusFan]

I affirm that “one cannot be living in a habitual lifestyle of sinning” and deny “sinless perfection” in this life, if that infers the inability to sin.

My interpretation is a halfway point.

1) Believers should not practice sin, thus, believers are capable of not sinning at any particular point of reference.

2) If we are capable of not sinning at any particular point of reference, then the potential to not sin for any span of time is also possible.

3) If the potential to not sin for any span of time is possible, then there is no necessary point in which sin becomes a necessity.

Now, Wesley’s argument is that to sin means a willful act against a known law of God. This is Paul’s argument in Rom 7, wherein where the is no law, there is no culpability for transgression: “8…For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.”

Unintentionally sinning becomes intentional once we become conscious of the “law” that was broken and we do not repent of that infraction or continue to commit it after being informed by the law of its error.

If I never become aware of my infraction- however that ignorance is enforced by circumstance- I have no means of conscious culpability to repent or confess.

So, in summary, for those who follow the Spirit, “the full requirements of the law” can be “fully met” (Rom 8:4) Thus, if this is true, the believer should embrace the potential and power of not having to sin at any given point of time. As John wrote in his first epistle, “1My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

We should not sin, and we don’t have to; but we are still capable of sinning, and if we do, there is a remedy for our sin, “and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.”


Doug

We still have that old sin nature, the flesh, that desires us to keep on rebelling against God, and the bible tells us to keep it under crucified status

 

[TibiasDad]

We still have that old sin nature, the flesh, that desires us to keep on rebelling against God, and the bible tells us to keep it under crucified status

If something is crucified, is it still alive?

Doug

 

[charismaticlady]

1 archangel named in Gods bible=Michael. No worship goes to him-EVER. Catholicism put worship. Obeisance to a king is correct for Jesus.
Isaiah said-his NAME will be called those things= not him.
Jesus is a mortal--Michael is the spirit God sent to become a mortal.

As far as only one archangel named in God's Bible, Daniel 10 shows that Michael is a prince. It names two other princes: the prince of Persia and the prince of Greece. I already told you this. That type of prince are archangels. They are OBVIOUSLY over countries. Michael the Archangel Gabriel called Daniel's prince. Thus over Israel.

You have shown no scripture for your claim. Why? Are you just be getting your beliefs from a human sect, rather from the Word of God. Your sect does not have the Spirit of God leading them, so go out of them and pray that God would wipe your mind of ALL false doctrines of man and even demons, and then have the Spirit of Truth - the Holy Spirit of God, reteach you the one and only meaning of ever word of our New Covenant. It is clear you haven't ever done that. I did, and the effect of the answer was immediate and supernatural. My doctrines changed so radically, I couldn't find a denominational church to join. We are definitely in the last church age of Laodecia - the falling away. 2 Thes. 2:3 From what? The Truth.

 

[charismaticlady]

We still have that old sin nature, the flesh, that desires us to keep on rebelling against God, and the bible tells us to keep it under crucified status

Just because we still have free will doesn't mean we have a sin nature when born again. Don't you understand that it our nature that is born again and a new creation? Jesus took away the desire to commit sin. From where? Our nature. That is why we cannot willfully commit lawless sin. Our clean nature (John 15:3) is why we can now partake of the divine nature of God.

 

[charismaticlady]

The removal of Gods name from his bible is one of the biggest atrocities ever to occur, it misleads all into darkness( they find little light)-The JW,s put it back, condemned by the ones owned by satan.

Your name is from Latin Catholicism. You should be called Yahweh Witnesses.

Did you know that the Hebrew letters of Yahweh mean nail in hand? Who does that refer to?

 

[charismaticlady]

Mere rhetoric and zero evidence as to its validity!

Still?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

A reminder from your sister in Christ,

Grow

 

[TibiasDad]

Still?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

A reminder from your sister in Christ,

Grow

My sister, I am not quite sure what you are saying here…


Doug

 

[Keiw1]

I affirm that “one cannot be living in a habitual lifestyle of sinning” and deny “sinless perfection” in this life, if that infers the inability to sin.

My interpretation is a halfway point.

1) Believers should not practice sin, thus, believers are capable of not sinning at any particular point of reference.

2) If we are capable of not sinning at any particular point of reference, then the potential to not sin for any span of time is also possible.

3) If the potential to not sin for any span of time is possible, then there is no necessary point in which sin becomes a necessity.

Now, Wesley’s argument is that to sin means a willful act against a known law of God. This is Paul’s argument in Rom 7, wherein where the is no law, there is no culpability for transgression: “8…For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.”

Unintentionally sinning becomes intentional once we become conscious of the “law” that was broken and we do not repent of that infraction or continue to commit it after being informed by the law of its error.

If I never become aware of my infraction- however that ignorance is enforced by circumstance- I have no means of conscious culpability to repent or confess.

So, in summary, for those who follow the Spirit, “the full requirements of the law” can be “fully met” (Rom 8:4) Thus, if this is true, the believer should embrace the potential and power of not having to sin at any given point of time. As John wrote in his first epistle, “1My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

We should not sin, and we don’t have to; but we are still capable of sinning, and if we do, there is a remedy for our sin, “and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.”


Doug

This is what Jesus will tell those who work iniquity( practice a sin) at judgement--Get away from me, i must confess i never even knew you). Yet the blind guides assure them they are saved to keep the tithes rolling in.

 

[Keiw1]

Please show me scriptures that you are using to connect Michael and Jesus.

Michael is an angel - rank of archangel - over the country of Israel. Archangels are called a prince over their country. Thus, prince of Persia and prince of Greece. Michael is Daniel's prince. What country does Daniel belong to?

Jesus is God, and in His pre-existence was the Word. Not a god, but God. God loved the world so much, and there was no man holy enough to satisfy what was necessary to cleanse the world of Satan's rule, that He overshadowed a virgin to bring forth a make part of Himself mortal to die for us. What JW's do not understand is that all humans since Adam sin - for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God - Jesus didn't, because He is God.

Michael is not the Word. Jesus is. Michael is not the Angel of the Lord. Jesus is. That name is why you are confused. But, you still have no excuse to be ignorant of the divinity of Jesus. Titus 2:13. ...the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. The Father cannot appear, He will always be invisible - He is spirit.

Rev 6:2-the war in heaven and the birth of Gods kingdom( explained at Rev 12) Michael took the ride of the white horse yet gets the crown. Only Jesus gets the crown. Rev 19:11-the continuation of that righteous war( white horse) Jesus shown on it. It does not stop until here-Rev 21:1)
1Thess 4:16--Upon Jesus return( when he gets the crown) the trumpet of God announces this ride( Rev 6:2)-- He comes with the voice of the archangel-Why? Because its his voice.
There is no other explanation how Jesus can come with Michaels voice unless it is his voice.
Jesus the mortal is the Word.

 

[Keiw1]

Jesus received ehat he stated as truth, as he took Thomas worship

NONE who has a God gets worship. The darkness teaches that lie. A mistranslated Greek word that has 5 different meanings. One of those meanings= obeisance to a king. That is what Jesus gets in reality. Catholicism put worship-Jesus was NEVER with Catholicism, they twisted it into oblivion. NONE of her branches fixed much.

 

[Keiw1]

As far as only one archangel named in God's Bible, Daniel 10 shows that Michael is a prince. It names two other princes: the prince of Persia and the prince of Greece. I already told you this. That type of prince are archangels. They are OBVIOUSLY over countries. Michael the Archangel Gabriel called Daniel's prince. Thus over Israel.

You have shown no scripture for your claim. Why? Are you just be getting your beliefs from a human sect, rather from the Word of God. Your sect does not have the Spirit of God leading them, so go out of them and pray that God would wipe your mind of ALL false doctrines of man and even demons, and then have the Spirit of Truth - the Holy Spirit of God, reteach you the one and only meaning of ever word of our New Covenant. It is clear you haven't ever done that. I did, and the effect of the answer was immediate and supernatural. My doctrines changed so radically, I couldn't find a denominational church to join. We are definitely in the last church age of Laodecia - the falling away. 2 Thes. 2:3 From what? The Truth.

Satan was a prince, never called archangel-Gabriel is a prince-never called archangel. There can only be 1 archangel-It means-Chief of the angels.
Yes Catholicism=2Thess 2:3 and all of her branches--God fixed it here in these last days=The JW,s. The teachings of Jesus in every translation on Earth prove its fact.

 

[Keiw1]

Your name is from Latin Catholicism. You should be called Yahweh Witnesses.

Did you know that the Hebrew letters of Yahweh mean nail in hand? Who does that refer to?

Though names are different in languages, they are still the same name. For Example the name Charles in German is Karl. Its still the same name. Do you call Jesus-Jesus or Yeshua as your post would have others believe?

 

[Keiw1]

Mere rhetoric and zero evidence as to its validity! Translations are not synonymous with the text itself. Language is not biased in itself, it is just information. The words and how they are used is the foundational starting point, and we rely on the 5800 mss to establish the most reliable expression of what the text actually was when first written by their authors.

Whatever discrepancies there are in these 5800 mss, they are fair points of debate, but the rules of grammar and the insertion of language that is not within these 5800 copies is not debatable.

If it is not in the text, it is not to be in the translation of the text. If the rules of grammar do not permit a particular translation, then it should not stand as legitimately valid or possible.

The NWT does not pass these foundational requirements and repeatedly adds words or manipulates phrasing that violate the rules of grammar

Mere rhetoric and zero evidence as to its validity! Translations are not synonymous with the text itself. Language is not biased in itself, it is just information. The words and how they are used is the foundational starting point, and we rely on the 5800 mss to establish the most reliable expression of what the text actually was when first written by their authors.

Whatever discrepancies there are in these 5800 mss, they are fair points of debate, but the rules of grammar and the insertion of language that is not within these 5800 copies is not debatable.

If it is not in the text, it is not to be in the translation of the text. If the rules of grammar do not permit a particular translation, then it should not stand as legitimately valid or possible.

The NWT does not pass these foundational requirements and repeatedly adds words or manipulates phrasing that violate the rules of grammar.

Doug

God fixed his translation= The New world translation--These ( Luke 17:26- mislead by the darkness cannot see it.

 

[TibiasDad]

This is what Jesus will tell those who work iniquity( practice a sin) at judgement--Get away from me, i must confess i never even knew you). Yet the blind guides assure them they are saved to keep the tithes rolling in.

Show how my argument is biblically false and/or inaccurate. Explain how words like “other”, which is not in the text, is a biblically necessary addition “for clarity” rather than corruption of the text. The Word did not “create all other things” he created all things without exception.

Use your rhetoric to your own destruction, but feel free to bring actual exegetical evidence that can be substantiated by scripture and I will be happy to discuss it with you, whether I agree or not notwithstanding. (I disagree with a lot of people on many different topics and can still hold biblical discussions, so I have no problem with you believing differently than I do, but I do have a problem with empty rhetoric like your post above, because it is time wasting to respond without dealing with the actual scriptural questions on the table.)

Doug

 

[charismaticlady]

My sister, I am not quite sure what you are saying here…


Doug

Look at your words under your signature. That is what I am saying to you regarding K. Find within you kinder adbonitions, otherwise, he will only stiffen his back against your words. Then you might as well be talking to a stone.

 

[TibiasDad]

Rev 6:2-the war in heaven and the birth of Gods kingdom( explained at Rev 12) Michael took the ride of the white horse yet gets the crown. Only Jesus gets the crown.

Rev 6:1I watched as the Lamb opened the first of the seven seals. Then I heard one of the four living creatures say in a voice like thunder, “Come!” 2I looked, and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest.

Where do you see Michael’s name?

Michael does battle in heaven against the dragon, but this unnamed rider is set to conquer on earth.

The white horse and crown are symbols of the supreme commander; can that be any other supreme than God?

Is not the Lamb the only one worthy to open the seals? Is not the Lamb the supreme commander of God’s army. Does he not also ride a white horse? (Rev 19:11-ff)

There is no biblical justification to say the rider is Michael.

Doug

 

[FreeInChrist]

Then how do you explain Greek scholars putting a god at John 1:1 in their translations? Abner Kneeland-1822-Compared Greek to English, side by side in his NT translation to prove to the world a god is correct. Plus ALL can look up John 1:1 and 2 Cor 4:4 in Greek by googling it- they find-The true living God at both spots is called a different Greek word than either the Word or satan is called. These 2 spots are the only 2 spots in NT where 2 are called God and god. The only possible reason the Word is given a different word, like satan is at 2 Cor 4:4 is to show the difference of God and god. One cannot translate both spots different=a god is 100% correct.

@Keiw1, the argument you were given sounds persuasive at first glance, but it misunderstands how Greek grammar works and why John 1:1 is translated the way it is.


First, the difference in Greek words is being overstated. John does not use two different Greek words for “God” and “god.” Both are the same word — θεός (theos). The only difference is the article, not the noun.

In John 1:1 you have ὁ θεός (“the God”) and θεὸς without the article. Greek often drops the article to describe nature or quality, not to mean “a lesser god.” This is a well-known grammatical feature called a qualitative predicate nominative (often explained by Colwell’s Rule). So καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος means “the Word was God in nature,” not “a god.” If John had written ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, it would actually mean the Word is the same person as the Father (modalism), which John clearly avoids.

The lack of the article preserves the distinction between the Father and the Word, not a difference in their divine nature. John’s grammar distinguishes the persons without diminishing the Word’s deity. In other words, it shows distinction of person, not inferiority of nature.

Second, appealing to 2 Corinthians 4:4 doesn’t prove the point either. There Satan is called “the god of this age” (ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου), but that’s obviously functional or metaphorical, not ontological. Scripture often uses theos for false gods, judges, or idols (Psalm 82; 1 Cor 8:5). Context determines meaning, not the presence or absence of the article. John 1:3 says all things were made through the Word — which would be impossible if the Word were merely “a god,” since created beings cannot create everything.


Finally, Abner Kneeland wasn’t a neutral Greek scholar — he was a known rationalist/Universalist who denied Christ’s deity before translating. That’s ideology driving translation, not grammar. Virtually every recognized Greek grammarian (not just theologians) agrees John 1:1 is qualitative, pointing to full deity.


So grammatically and contextually, “a god” doesn’t fit. John is distinguishing person, not essence — the Word is with God, yet fully shares what God is.